What’s Really Behind the Clinton Sex Scandals?

by Leigh Bravo1/15/16“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” This comment remains one of the most infamous and well-known statements made by then president, Bill Clinton. Well, it turned out that Bill Clinton did, in fact, have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, and his denials resulted in his impeachment in 1998.

Bill Clinton’s sexual past has come rushing to the forefront again after presidential candidate and wife, Hillary Clinton, made the following statement,

“Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.”

Hillary was Bill’s strongest supporter and denier during his sexual escapades and scandals, and demonized any and all of the women who claimed they were attacked, raped, fondled, or had consensual sexual relationships by and with the former president.

Hillary claimed, during an interview with Matt Lauer in 1998, that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was responsible for the allegations of his affair with Lewinsky. She further stated,

“I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”

Interestingly enough, the women that filed claims of sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton, as well as those who claimed consensual affairs with the president, were not right wingers, but staunch Clinton supporters and democratic campaign volunteers as well as interns working within his administration. Monica Lewinsky was a 22-year-old White House intern for the democratic administration when she participated in a consensual affair with Clinton.

As a result of the Lewinsky affair, and his subsequent lies regarding the affair to a grand jury, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on the grounds of perjury, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice relating to his relationship with Lewinsky and subsequent actions. In February 1999, in a Senate vote basically along Democratic party lines, Clinton was acquitted and allowed to stay in office, yet this still remains a scandal that most Americans over 45 will never forget. Many say the Clinton Lewinsky scandal really had nothing to do with his personal sexual escapades, but,

“was about subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice and a true abuse of power on the part of a sitting president.”

Many women stepped forward after the Lewinsky scandal claiming inappropriate behavior by Bill Clinton. Currently there is a list of approximately 14 women claiming sexual misconduct by the former president.

Juanita Broaddrick, (Juanita Hickey), a volunteer for the Clinton gubernatorial campaign, claims she was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978.

Kathleen Willey, another ardent campaign organizer for Clinton in 1992, claimed she was assaulted by Clinton in a meeting in the Oval office in 1993 which resulted in a law suit against the president. She was paid $850,000 plus legal fees to end the suit by Clinton.

Paula Jones, filed a lawsuit against Clinton in 1994 claiming as a state clerk attending a conference, then governor of Arkansas, Clinton, lured her to his suite, touched her, tried to kiss her and dropped his pants asking for oral sex.

Gennifer Flowers came forward and claimed she and Bill Clinton had participated in a consensual 12 year affair; one that Clinton insiders claimed was true.

“Hillary has enabled Bill’s sexual escapades to happen again and again. Hillary chooses to go after the women that he hooks up with, to ruin them again and again and again.”

Hillary called White House intern, Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon.” Gennifer Flowers who had an affair with Clinton over 12 years was called “trailer trash.” Juanita Broaddrick who claimed she was raped by Clinton, was threatened by Hillary two weeks after she broke her silence.”

Gennifer Flowers claimed Hillary ran a “war room” during the 1992 elections to smear women like her and Wiley later said that she had launched a “terror campaign” against them all.

Linda Tripp who was credited for taping conversations with Monica Lewinsky that broke the affair with Clinton, had an office adjacent to Hillary for the entire Clinton Administration outside of 3 months which she spent directly outside the Oval office. In a recent interview The Daily Mail wrote,

“Her position offered her unparalleled access to, and a unique perspective on, both the couple and the administration.”

In the interview, Tripp said,

“It was Hillary who manipulated and stage-managed the story, converting herself from a lackluster First Lady with unimpressive approval ratings to admirable First Victim …. She ‘orchestrated the cover up’ and she made damn sure that she moved on. Nothing, and no-one, was going to stand in her way.”

“I think the most compelling thing about Hillary is that she will stop at nothing to achieve her end and that she views the public as plebeians easily seduced into believing her point of view.”

“In famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein’s book ‘A Woman in Charge,’ he chronicles Hillary’s efforts to track down all the women her husband had cheated with – not to exact revenge, but to persuade them to recant their stories.”

“When Bill Clinton looks back at his denials that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, he regrets lying, but also believes that telling the truth could have cost him the presidency.”

In his own words, during the interview, Clinton said,

“I will never know what would have happened, but I can only tell you this, I have not talked to a single person who was there then, who knew what was going on, who believes that I would survive as president if I had said that. Not one. Not any one.”

In Bill Clinton’s own words, he felt the need to lie because telling the truth might end his presidency. So does the end justify the lie in the first place?

Hillary Clinton, running for the presidency in 2016, claims all women of rape and assault have the right to be heard and believed. Does that mean only those women who were not sexually assaulted or raped by her husband and demonized by her?

So what is really behind the Clinton sex scandals? A tremendous amount of hypocrisy and lies.

9 Responses to What’s Really Behind the Clinton Sex Scandals?

I can’t help but see Bill Clinton as sort of the Id of the Red Diaper Doper Baby generation, along with the hippies, beatniks, etc. These were the generations that dispensed with even the idea of morality and engaged in copious amounts of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.

So how could they condemn this narcissistic yuppie for sins that had become regular to them? If the Clintons were the family next door, most people would move.

Human Events once printed out some dictionary entries (I checked, and found they were from Webster’s Third International Dictionary showing that “sexual relations” was defined as genital intercourse. Of course, that’s denotation, and the connotation is much more inclusive. But Slick Willie, as a lawyer, would be ready to use denotation to justify his remarks and defend himself from a charge of perjury.

I like Rush Limbaugh’s comment that this was actually a statement to Miss Lewinsky that he hadn’t had sexual relations with “that woman”, Hillary.

Hahahahaha. I’d never heard of that way of parsing the sentence, as if Bill was talking about “that woman” being Hillary. He’s a slick lawyer. That may even have been on his mind. Who knows? But it’s credible because this is the same dirtbag who was parsing what the meaning of “is” is.

One of the sad things is that opportunity for the opposition party (if we had one) is ripe and yet most of them are sitting on their hands. I don’t believe this house of cards will topple on its own accord. It has to be pushed. Who will fling Hillary’s hypocrisy back into her face?

I believe that almost all the support Trump has is because people believe he is the one and only Republican who has the nads to do so. That he is liberal himself (probably much further Left than Romney, Bush, or Rubio) is beside the point.

The funny thing about “what the meaning of is is” is that Slick Willie was actually right on that one. In fact, the moment I decided that a plausible claim was in fact true came when a spokesman said that “there is” no such relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky. If such a relationship had been ended five minutes earlier, that would be a technically true statement. So I knew from the phrasing that there had been a sexual relationship, which had now ended (if only because it was exposed).

I just look at the words carefully. This only works, of course, with someone like Clinton who prefers to lie in a fashion that can be defended as technically true (no doubt a legacy of his legal familiarity with perjury). The key is often the difference between denotation and connotation, but sometimes it can be as simple as a tense change.

This led to some top-notch liberal hypocrisy. First they claimed that it was immoral to attack a Vietnam veteran — even though the Swiftboat Vets they were denouncing were equally Vietnam veterans. Then, 4 years later, the same newsliars had no hesitation in attacking John McCain’s service. NBC went so far as to send someone to Vietnam to ask McCain’s prison guard if he had really tortured him. Of course he denied it, which NBC naturally reported as being true.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.